web02.fireside.fm Sat, 13 Jun 2026 18:16:13 -0500 Fireside (https://fireside.fm) Increments - Episodes Tagged with “Psychology” https://www.incrementspodcast.com/tags/psychology Wed, 27 Apr 2022 18:00:00 -0700 Vaden Masrani, a senior research scientist in machine learning, and Ben Chugg, a PhD student in statistics, get into trouble arguing about everything except machine learning and statistics. Coherence is somewhere on the horizon. Bribes, suggestions, love-mail and hate-mail all welcome at incrementspodcast@gmail.com. en-us episodic Science, Philosophy, Epistemology, Mayhem Ben Chugg and Vaden Masrani Vaden Masrani, a senior research scientist in machine learning, and Ben Chugg, a PhD student in statistics, get into trouble arguing about everything except machine learning and statistics. Coherence is somewhere on the horizon. Bribes, suggestions, love-mail and hate-mail all welcome at incrementspodcast@gmail.com. no Philosophy,Science,Ethics,Progress,Knowledge,Computer Science,Conversation,Error-Correction Ben Chugg and Vaden Masrani incrementspodcast@gmail.com #39 - The Enigma of Reason https://www.incrementspodcast.com/39 21d2237b-a7e7-48a7-a37e-4f10ed93f7c1 Wed, 27 Apr 2022 18:00:00 -0700 Ben Chugg and Vaden Masrani full Ben Chugg and Vaden Masrani A discussion of The Enigma of Reason by Hugo Mercier and Dan Sperber. 1:01:59 no <p>The most reasonable and well-reasoned discussion of reason you can be reasonably expected to hear. Today we talk about the book <em>The Enigma of Reason</em> by Dan Sperber and Hugo Mercier. But first, get ready for dogs, modern art, and babies! </p> <p>*<em>We discuss *</em></p> <ul> <li>Reason as a social phenomenon </li> <li>The two roles of reason: To justify our actions, and to evaluate the reasons of others </li> <li>Reason as module of inference, and how that contrasts with dual-process theories </li> <li>The "intellectualist" vs the "interactionist" approach to reason </li> <li>Nassim Taleb's notion of "skin in the game" </li> <li>The consequences of reason having evolved in a particular (social) niche </li> <li>The marshmallow test and other debunked psychological findings </li> </ul> <p><strong>Quotes</strong>: </p> <blockquote> <p>The interactionist approach, on the other hand, makes two contrasting predictions. In the production of arguments, we should be biased and lazy; in the evaluation of arguments, we should be demanding and objective— demanding so as not to be deceived by poor or fallacious arguments into accepting false ideas, objective so as to be ready to revise our ideas when presented with good reasons why we should. <br> EoR (pg. 332)</p> <p>In our interactionist approach, the normal conditions for the use of reasoning are social, and more specifically dialogic. Outside of this environment, there is no guarantee that reasoning acts for the benefits of the reasoner. It might lead to epistemic distortions and poor decisions. This does not mean reasoning is broken, simply that it has been taken out of its normal conditions. <br> EoR (pg. 247)</p> </blockquote> <p><strong>References</strong></p> <ul> <li>Dan Sperber's <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXsjWo6K4w0" rel="nofollow noopener">talk</a> at the Santa Fe Institute</li> <li>Image credit: <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/culture/charlottehigginsblog/2009/oct/20/classics-barack-obama" rel="nofollow noopener">https://www.theguardian.com/culture/charlottehigginsblog/2009/oct/20/classics-barack-obama</a></li> </ul> <p><strong>Social media everywhere</strong></p> <ul> <li>Follow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani</li> <li>Check us out on youtube at <a href="https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4wZzQyoW4s4ZuE4FY9DQQ" rel="nofollow noopener">https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4wZzQyoW4s4ZuE4FY9DQQ</a></li> <li>Come join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link</li> </ul> <p>Send a reason, any reason, any reason at all, to <em><a href="mailto:incrementspodcast@gmail.com" rel="nofollow noopener">incrementspodcast@gmail.com</a></em>. </p> reason, rationality, bias, psychology, evolution, cognitive biases The most reasonable and well-reasoned discussion of reason you can be reasonably expected to hear. Today we talk about the book The Enigma of Reason by Dan Sperber and Hugo Mercier. But first, get ready for dogs, modern art, and babies!

*We discuss *

  • Reason as a social phenomenon
  • The two roles of reason: To justify our actions, and to evaluate the reasons of others
  • Reason as module of inference, and how that contrasts with dual-process theories
  • The "intellectualist" vs the "interactionist" approach to reason
  • Nassim Taleb's notion of "skin in the game"
  • The consequences of reason having evolved in a particular (social) niche
  • The marshmallow test and other debunked psychological findings

Quotes:

The interactionist approach, on the other hand, makes two contrasting predictions. In the production of arguments, we should be biased and lazy; in the evaluation of arguments, we should be demanding and objective— demanding so as not to be deceived by poor or fallacious arguments into accepting false ideas, objective so as to be ready to revise our ideas when presented with good reasons why we should.
EoR (pg. 332)

In our interactionist approach, the normal conditions for the use of reasoning are social, and more specifically dialogic. Outside of this environment, there is no guarantee that reasoning acts for the benefits of the reasoner. It might lead to epistemic distortions and poor decisions. This does not mean reasoning is broken, simply that it has been taken out of its normal conditions.
EoR (pg. 247)

References

Social media everywhere

Send a reason, any reason, any reason at all, to incrementspodcast@gmail.com.

Support Increments

]]> The most reasonable and well-reasoned discussion of reason you can be reasonably expected to hear. Today we talk about the book The Enigma of Reason by Dan Sperber and Hugo Mercier. But first, get ready for dogs, modern art, and babies!

*We discuss *

  • Reason as a social phenomenon
  • The two roles of reason: To justify our actions, and to evaluate the reasons of others
  • Reason as module of inference, and how that contrasts with dual-process theories
  • The "intellectualist" vs the "interactionist" approach to reason
  • Nassim Taleb's notion of "skin in the game"
  • The consequences of reason having evolved in a particular (social) niche
  • The marshmallow test and other debunked psychological findings

Quotes:

The interactionist approach, on the other hand, makes two contrasting predictions. In the production of arguments, we should be biased and lazy; in the evaluation of arguments, we should be demanding and objective— demanding so as not to be deceived by poor or fallacious arguments into accepting false ideas, objective so as to be ready to revise our ideas when presented with good reasons why we should.
EoR (pg. 332)

In our interactionist approach, the normal conditions for the use of reasoning are social, and more specifically dialogic. Outside of this environment, there is no guarantee that reasoning acts for the benefits of the reasoner. It might lead to epistemic distortions and poor decisions. This does not mean reasoning is broken, simply that it has been taken out of its normal conditions.
EoR (pg. 247)

References

Social media everywhere

Send a reason, any reason, any reason at all, to incrementspodcast@gmail.com.

Support Increments

]]>